AP Success - AP English Language: The Lincoln vs. Douglas Debates
This is from the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858.
Now, I hold that Illinois had a right to abolish and prohibit slavery as she did, and I hold that Kentucky has the same right to continue and protect slavery that Illinois had to abolish it. I hold that New York had as much right to abolish slavery as Virginia has to continue it, and that each and every State of this Union is a sovereign power, with the right to do as it pleases upon this question of slavery, and upon all its domestic institutions. Slavery is not the only question which comes up in this controversy. There is a far more important one to you, and that is, what shall be done with the free negro? We have settled the slavery question as far as we are concerned; we have prohibited it in Illinois forever, and in doing so, I think we have done wisely, and there is no man in the State who would be more strenuous in his opposition to the introduction of slavery than I would; but when we settled it for ourselves, we exhausted all our power over that subject. We have done our whole duty, and can do no more. We must leave each and every other State to decide for itself the same question. In relation to the policy to be pursued toward the free negroes, we have said that they shall not vote; whilst Maine, on the other hand, has said that they shall vote. Maine is a sovereign State, and has the power to regulate the qualifications of voters within her limits. I would never consent to confer the right of voting and of citizenship upon a negro, but still I am not going to quarrel with Maine for differing from me in opinion. Let Maine take care of her own negroes, and fix the qualifications of her own voters to suit herself, without interfering with Illinois, and Illinois will not interfere with Maine. So with the State of New York. She allows the negro to vote provided he owns two hundred and fifty dollars’ worth of property, but not otherwise. While I would not make any distinction whatever between a negro who held property and one who did not, yet if the sovereign State of New York chooses to make that distinction it is her business and not mine, and I will not quarrel with her for it. She can do as she pleases on this question if she minds her own business, and we will do the same thing. Now, my friends, if we will only act conscientiously and rigidly upon this great principle of popular sovereignty, which guarantees to each State and Territory the right to do as it pleases on all things, local and domestic, instead of Congress interfering, we will continue at peace one with another. Why should Illinois be at war with Missouri, or Kentucky with Ohio, or Virginia, with New York, merely because their institutions differ? Our fathers intended that our institutions should differ. They knew that the North and the South, having different climates, productions, and interests, required different institutions. This doctrine of Mr. Lincoln, of uniformity among the institutions of the different States, is a new doctrine, never dreamed of by Washington, Madison, or the framers of this government. Mr. Lincoln and the Republican party set themselves up as wiser than these men who made this government, which has flourished for seventy years under the principle of popular sovereignty, recognizing the right of each State to do as it pleased. Under that principle, we have grown from a nation of three or four millions to a nation of about thirty millions of people; we have crossed the Allegheny mountains and filled up the whole Northwest, turning the prairie into a garden, and building up churches and schools, thus spreading civilization and Christianity where before there was nothing but savage barbarism. Under that principle we have become, from a feeble nation, the most powerful on the face of the earth, and if we only adhere to that principle, we can go forward increasing in territory, in power, in strength, and in glory until the Republic of America shall be the north star that shall guide the friend of freedom throughout the civilized world. And why can we not adhere to the great principle of self-government upon which our institutions were originally based? I believe that this new doctrine preached by Mr. Lincoln and his party will dissolve the Union if it succeeds. They are trying to array all the Northern States in one body against the South, to excite a sectional war between the free States and the slave States, in order that the one or the other may be driven to the wall.
Question 1
The author's argument in lines 1-6 primarily relies on the idea that:
States should have uniform laws regarding slavery.
The sovereignty of states should be respected in matters of domestic policy.
Slavery is a moral issue that transcends state rights.
States like Illinois and Kentucky should not interact with each other.
The federal government should decide on the legality of slavery.
Question 2
In lines 10-11, the phrase "what shall be done with the free negro?" is most likely mentioned to:
Highlight the primary concern regarding the abolition of slavery.
Underline a secondary issue that arises from the slavery debate.
Show the author's personal bias against African Americans.
Suggest a national policy for dealing with freed slaves.
Introduce a new topic unrelated to the slavery debate.
Question 3
The author's use of "whilst" in line 21 primarily serves to:
Introduce a contrast between two states' policies.
Show a preference for Maine's laws over Illinois'.
Illustrate the author's formal style of writing.
Emphasize the unity between different state policies.
Highlight the similarity between Maine and Illinois.
Question 4
Lines 15-18 suggest that the author believes the decision to abolish or continue slavery should be:
Decided by the federal government.
A unified decision among all states.
Left to individual states to determine.
Dictated by economic considerations.
Based on moral principles rather than state rights.
Question 5
The reference to New York and the $250 property requirement (lines 29-31) is used by the author to demonstrate:
A successful policy for managing voting rights.
The arbitrary nature of voting qualifications.
An example of discrimination based on wealth.
A fair and equitable law for all residents.
The diversity of states' approaches to civil rights.
Question 6
In lines 37-39, the principle of "popular sovereignty" is presented as:
A contentious issue that divides the nation.
A fundamental principle that should guide all state decisions.
A flawed concept that has led to national discord.
An outdated notion that no longer applies to modern America.
A principle that applies only to certain states.
Question 7
The mention of "Illinois be[ing] at war with Missouri, or Kentucky with Ohio" (lines 42-43) serves to:
Exaggerate the potential consequences of state disagreements.
Provide historical examples of interstate conflicts.
Illustrate the absurdity of conflicts based on state policies.
Warn of the potential for future conflicts.
Suggest that state conflicts are inevitable.
Question 8
The author implies that the variety of state institutions (lines 45-48) is:
A source of strength and diversity for the nation.
A problem that needs to be addressed by uniform laws.
Irrelevant to the national wellbeing.
A temporary situation that will soon be resolved.
The result of poor leadership at the state level.
Question 9
In lines 49-53, the doctrine of "uniformity among the institutions" is:
Advocated as a solution to national problems.
Criticized as a new and misguided approach.
Presented as an alternative to popular sovereignty.
Supported by historical figures like Washington and Madison.
Identified as the main cause of the nation's success.
Question 10
The overall tone of the passage can best be described as:
Optimistic and hopeful.
Critical and argumentative.
Neutral and informative.
Pessimistic and warning.
Reflective and nostalgic.
Teach with AI superpowers
Why teachers love Class Companion
Import assignments to get started in no time.
Create your own rubric to customize the AI feedback to your liking.
Overrule the AI feedback if a student disputes.